Privacy is realized by the group founder creating a specialkeypair for the group and secretly sharing the private group key with every new group member.When a member is removed from a group or leaves it, the founder has to renew the group’s keypair
Have locks on data is a nice idea.
But given we have dissemination/disclosure among friends only, do we need to encrypt the blocks? Given communication channels are encrypted.
However, by doing so the sender mayreveal additional information through the block’s hash pointers, e.g. the identities of other groupmembers
Well, when sharing such a block off-group, you may skip transmitting its deps. In Social Networking that may be alright. And when off-group agent gets accepted to group, he's able to get the stuff below.
However, that does complicate piggybacking, as it'll be seen that the previously off-group agent has some block (but actually he doesn't have its deps).
reserved words
Perhaps a sort of protobuf is better.
A group creator can invite other agents to become members and remove members atwill.
Goes against democratic principles.
A democratic way will be to raise a BAN poll.
Thegrassroots WhatsApp-like protocol WL employs a hypergraph (a graph in which an edge mayconnect any number of vertices). A hyperedge connecting agents 𝑃 ⊂ Π means that the agents in 𝑃are members in a group represented by the hyperedge
I.e., an edge of a hypergraph is a set of vertices.
This is akin to a pub/sub topic.
SMS
has an IPaddress
Multiaddr could be used instead, to aid connectivity
and if located behind a firewall that preventssmartphones from communicating directly,
Huh, such firewalls exist? I thought they can be hole-punched.
In particular, adeep-fake payload that is not attributed to its source can be promptly filtered as spam
^
However, sinceevery block in GSN is signed, when one breaches privacy within the protocol the breach carriestheir signature so the culprit can be identified.
What stops a culprit to send off-group a message that is not his own? We can only achieve the "culprit detection" by addressing and signing every message we send to A. This is a lot of re-signing. And we won't have a convergent DAG.
Furthermore, each block sent includes the most recent IP address of the sender,allowing agents to keep track of their friend’s changing IP addresses.
Perhaps better to attach a new IP address to a message once it does change. What's the point in telling over-and-over the same IP?
Every so often, an agent 𝑝sends to every friend 𝑞 every block 𝑝 knows and believes that 𝑞 needs, based on the last blockreceived from 𝑞.
^
Agents communicate only with their friends
More like an edge gives a communication path.
A->B (A follows B) - B can talk to A.
A<->B - B can talk to A, A can talk to B.
However, their exclusion is not required in social networking, and hence social networking protocolscan be simpler than payment systems protocols
I.e., Equivocation exclusion is not required for social networking.